Roche

Ivanisevic

Del Potro

Chang

Cash

other

Close between Roddick and Murray, if Andy will finish his career just with 1 slam he will be for sure best ever with 1 slam, right now probably Roddick is leading by little margin, thanks to his No.1 ranking. But Murray is very close and even if he ends up with 1 slam, he will add many more titles, Masters 1000 and many weeks-years in top 5 so he would accomplish visibly more than Roddick for sure.

Muster was the most dominant player of those listed. He really ruled clay for a couple of years. His hardcourt career was ruined by getting run over by the drunk driver - before then he was a real threat, but afterwards he only entered the required tournaments and usually tanked to avoid playing on the hard courts with his knee. He did win the Lipton/Miami (where he was injured) later in his career - I'm guessing it was important to him since the finals appearance was taken away by the drunk driver.

Roddick does have a slight edge over Murray because of year end #1. it is a big thing on the ATP tour. However, Murray is just peaking right now and he'll probably have a better career than AR.
I'm surprised not to see Ferrero on that list (love him), although I can't say he was the best player with only 1 slam.

Not going to talk about accomplishment, but only wanted to say what a waste of talent Stich, Ivanisevic and Krajicek winning only one Slam each.

When they were on they could beat anyone on any surface, but injuries and lack of mental focus/desire/whatever...made them achieve way less than expected.

At the beginning of the 90s, when they all were very young, I thought of each one of them as sure multi-Slam winners in the future, but at the end each one of them only managed to win one single Slam title, at Wimbledon.

They were three of the great generation of players of that time: Stich, Agassi, Courier, Bruguera, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Chang, Rafter (all of them Slam-winners) and honorable mention to Todd Martin, Cedric Pioline and Wayne Ferreira, from the same group age.

Not going to talk about accomplishment, but only wanted to say what a waste of talent Stich, Ivanisevic and Krajicek winning only one Slam each.

When they were on they could beat anyone on any surface, but injuries and lack of mental focus/desire/whatever...made them achieve way less than expected.

At the beginning of the 90s, when they all were very young, I thought of each one of them as sure multi-Slam winners in the future, but at the end each one of them only managed to win one single Slam title, at Wimbledon.

They were three of the great generation of players of that time: Stich, Agassi, Courier, Bruguera, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Chang, Rafter (all of them Slam-winners) and honorable mention to Todd Martin, Cedric Pioline and Wayne Ferreira, from the same group age.

Click to expand...

The last great and competitive generation of tennis in the male´s ranks.

I dont think Krajicek is an underachiever. He was really slow, had a poor return of serve, not great backhand, and he didnt have any GOAT aspects to his game. 1 slam is about right for him. Stich and Ivanisevic are underachievers.

I really enjoyed that time, the end of the 80s and beginning of the 90s, because just about every week you saw yet another promising young talent and there was a point where I thought: "my God, where do all these talented youngster come from all of a sudden?"

And as soon as 1991 and 1992 many of them were in the top-10 ( Courier, Sampras, Stich, Ivanisevic, Chang, Agassi, Krajicek, Bruguera...) being all of them so young.

Only Becker, Edberg and Muster could still compete with them from the previous generation (and they were still only about 24-25 years old).

It was an amazing generation of talented young players.

But tennis was different back then, much more polarized conditions and many different styles being competitive.

It was so much fun, so many young talents looking so strong and seemed to put the tennis world upside-down.

I think the floodgates could be open for Murray, and he and Djokovic will be contesting most of the GS finals the next 3-4 years as The Rivalry in tennis (God help us all having to watch those kinds of matches with 40 stroke rallies being the norm, though).

So I think Murray will have a few slams when he's done.

Ivanisevic should have won at least 3-4 Wimbledon titles, but I think his height worked against him on other surfaces. He had the ground strokes, but not the footwork.

I think the floodgates could be open for Murray, and he and Djokovic will be contesting most of the GS finals the next 3-4 years as The Rivalry in tennis (God help us all having to watch those kinds of matches with 40 stroke rallies being the norm, though).

So I think Murray will have a few slams when he's done.

Ivanisevic should have won at least 3-4 Wimbledon titles, but I think his height worked against him on other surfaces. He had the ground strokes, but not the footwork.

Click to expand...

Ivanisevic was a nut case of the highest order. He was driving me crazy. He should have won at least 3 more Wimbledon. He either chocked or would mentally break down at any given moment. It was so painful to watch him.

Shocked Mainad picked Muster. Never knew he was a Muster fan of any sort.

Click to expand...

I'm not a fan. I picked him because he was a world #1, had won 44 titles (more than any others on the list) and 8 of them were Masters titles like Murray but, unlike Murray, won on both clay and hard court. So it seems to me that his achievements presently outweigh any of the others.